What’s the opposite to love?

the complex picture.

[Updated September 26]. A Swedish journalist writes in the review "What's the oppostite to love?" about a book with the title “Our Era’s Fear for Seriousness” that came 1995. In this book of thoughts the author tilted at a spirit of the time refusing to set about the large questions of society and life. To express it simpler: people (or the society in all) refused to discuss any deeper issues the author thought.

And this is still valid, and has become even worse the author thinks as you can read below. And some are wondering where all the intellectual are in debates. Why they are so silent and not reacting. They are only talking and writing about what's opportune?

But talking seriously doesn’t exclude laughter the reviewer thinks. On the contrary, these two parts have to go together. Roy Andersson, the author of the book in the review, wrote his thoughts down in a decade lined with a long neoliberal era and a gigantic retreat to the idea that "alone is strong."

And once again see what Owe Wikström writes about the individualism and the negative effects of individualism. The idea about alone is strong is that a defense mechanism, namely denial of needs, a denial that gives you a false sense of power - and strenght. Which doesn't mean that we don't have (can't have) a natural, genuine strenght.

We were in a deep economical crisis. The gulfs between the classes had started to grow again. The belief in the future was gone with the wind. The humanism was on retreat. The humor that ruled was above all the ironists, the ones making fun of seriousness and engagement. See what Alice Miller writes about irony.

There was an increased contempt for moral values, a contempt that was attacking the fundamental or basic content of the notion solidarity – to see yourself in other people. My addition: but at the same time there exists a new morality. People joked over the notion solidarity, over people who believed in solidarity and were trying to uphold such ideals, people who believed in seeing yourself in other people. How many damaged people do we actually have I can't help wondering, who have to make fun of people who try to be empathic and compassionate? What does this phenomenon say? I have my ideas.

What’s concealed in the wake of this if not a slowly growing belief in the übermensch-ideal (a super-human-being ideal) once again, which means a contempt for weakness. People blowing their trumpets: I can indeed! But this is problematic, because there are also people hiding their light under a bushel. And that's the other side of the coin. The lack of people with a sound selfesteem?

Back to the reviewer again: a contempt for weakness that once upon the time formed the breeding ground for racial biology, Nazism, concentration camps and gas chambers. There are new self-appointed master races in both Sweden and Europe today the reviewer thinks (and yes, that’s actually true, but they look differently than older times’? And see what the Swedish journalist Maria-Pia Boëthius writes about narcissism).

Now a new edition of this book comes, and Andersson establishes with distress that the content in his book still is valid. No, the development has changed even more to the worse.

The simple black-and-white conception of the world begins to see its chances again.

In those musty mud puddles the extreme right is growing once again.

Profiting on a powerlessness and frustration among many of the exposed people – not least among young unemployed men.

But it’s not the patriots' hate that frightens the reviewer most, but the widespread drowsy indifference in the broad middle class. He thinks that Elie Wiesel is right when he says that

“The opposite of love isn’t hate. The opposite of love is indifference.”

Yes, it was this with the back leaning indifference.

On earlier days' statare or agricultural laborer receiving allowance in kind - and the superclass then and now…

We don’t really believe in getting together to fight for things (together) in this society (we are solely individualists and not dependent on other people, neither on good nor on bad things other people do)?

At least we grassroots don't any more, we don't group as we did? Because we don't need it? Don't we?

But see about the power elites and the superclass below. They get together and group (but how? But that's another thread and discussion)!

Instead the individuals (some at least) try to make their voices heard entirely on their own. Individuals are screaming their voices hoarse? In an ocean of screaming voices are anybody really heard? Or whose and what voices are heard? Some have quite cynically given everything up. Or given up in a feeling of powerlessness (even if this feeing isn’t actual always).

And what about whistle blowers? Individuals daring to speak up (on their own) with no support and no backing?

Can individuals (genuinely autonomous, i.e. genuinely independent) exist in (a healthy) collective? Yes, I think that is possible. But in less healthy systems (group, political party, country etc.) there is an either/or, not a BOTH individual AND collective (and what is true, genuine individuality? Is individualism this? Can so called "individualism" be a disguised standardization? Practical for the power? Is individualism the same as being your true self, being personal, truly, genuinely unique?)?

Back 30-40 years many young people lived in collectives, some even with kids and families. But today those living in those collectives don’t believe in ANY collective solutions!? Yeah, maybe for very good reasons? Or?

Some say

“We have to trust people!”

At the same time people are not trusted! People are said to use the systems for instance. And thus we can’t trust anybody? And the people that are working hard are punished too for those misusing systems and things. A kind of collective punishment.

Think if one could move to an isolated island somewhere and get away from all this!?

Yes, some have said that you can trust too much AND too little.

Why can’t some people trust maybe at all?

And what about those trusting too much?

How was it in older days with people falling behind chairs? If a child lost both his/her parents and if it had no relatives? Who took care of those? Who saw so they got food and shelter? If a child was born disabled what did this mean? This child became a heavy burden to its parents a whole life?

If you couldn’t support yourself you had to rely on other peoples’ kindness and good will? Were all people in the society kind and good people helping the help needing? Were it the ones with most resources (in form of wealth, health, money) who helped those incapable of taking care of themselves because of low age, because they were disabled maybe already from they were born?

The one with less resources were they the ones that least of all cared?

Who cared less and contributed less is my silent wonder?

How often did infanticides occur because a child was born disabled because it would mean a too heavy burden for a family? How did one treat old people who were of no use anymore?

Who took care of people needing care (the truly, genuinely weak) of any kind? They could founder? And often foundered?

Children (especially to poor people) were auctioned off (for instance because one or both parents had died and they had no relatives who could take care of them) less than 100 years ago here, I think, to the ones taking them for less money. Like they were livestock. And they were also workers in the families where they landed, thus actual livestock (and child workers exist in this word today. And it existed during the 60's). Yes, they were workers at a very early age.

According to a now 29 year old woman the institutions she grew up in were better than (ELEVEN different) foster homes (in which she got abused, for instance sexually). So families paid for taking care of children aren't always so good today either! Institutions seem to be better according to this young woman. But institutions were bad here earlier too (and not so long ago).

Less than one hundred years ago (I think even to around 1940!!) we had agricultural laborer receiving allowance in kind. They had nothing else to sell than their workforce. And it wasn’t valued highly… They were tied to their employer, till they were of no use anymore. Totally in the hands of the good will of their master and the landowner (earlier days superclass, though those days "superclass" had limited power compared to the superclass today?).

Some women sold their bodies (women are doing this still), because they had nothing else to sell (they believed?) or nothing else to trade.

How did earlier societies take care of those needing care?

Also see about the truck system:

“A truck system is an arrangement in which employees are paid in commodities or scrip rather than with standard money. This limits their ability to choose how to spend their earnings—generally to the benefit of the employer. As an example, scrip might only be able to be used for the purchase of goods at a 'company store' where prices are set artificially high.

While this system had long existed in many parts of the world, it became widespread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as industrialization left many poor, unskilled workers without other means to support themselves and their families. The practice has been widely criticized as exploitative and similar in effect to slavery, and has been outlawed in many parts of the world. Variations of the truck system have existed world-wide, and are known by various names.”

The earliest coins were used already in old Greece.

Also came to think about the power elite(s), and the super class and oppression (the elites are getting together, grouping, while we grassroots are divided and ruled) and also about being obedient and keeping quiet ( and private egoism).

From an earlier posting (about the super class):

We had thralls or trälar (slaves) too here in Scandinavia, for instance during the Viking-era. And later people were held as thralls, but in another sense. They weren't literally in villenage, but still villains in many senses.

Apropos the book ”Superclass; The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” by David Rothkopf a commentator on a blog wrote about oppression, here my a little free translation and additions:

“One can scream oneself blue and it doesn’t matter or make any difference. But remember that the power, the oppression is dependent on psychology to a large degree. It’s dependent on that there are enough stupid people. Not unintelligent, of course, but self-righteous and dumb (foolish, stupid).”

The blog-owner replied:

“Of course you are right, and do you know this is also what David Rothkopf points out, he means that it’s ‘smooth’ for the superclass to govern so long as the voters in the democracies don’t take their responsibility and inform themselves so they can vote rationally.”

Yes, the power has interests in that the people under them don’t!?

For instance, we should all be interested that all people got enlightened! That all had good schools for instance, and had the same chances getting good education, with well-educated teachers (in all respects).

How do we deal with power abuse for instance? Do we deal with this individually?

Thoughts during a quite hectic morning April 23 (dentist and hairdresser): My maternal grandfather worked full time as chauffeur (car, truck and bus) and had one week off (vacation) each year, at most. And long workdays. They (he and my grandmother with four kids) also supported themselves with having cows, and sometimes a pig and hens I think. This meant that he had to get up early in the morning, start a fire so the house got warm, go out and feed the cow(s), milk it (them), and then go to work. When he came home he had to milk the cow again and give it food. In the summer he had to see so he had hay for he cow over the winter.

Today the pressure on people is different than it was then.

But people got exhausted then too, but it was called with other names?

Was he there for his kids? For his wife? For himself?

Is there a perfect system? With all harmed people in the world what is the less imperfect system? So most people can survive, and live decently.

And why are some people weak? Were they born this way? Do we have to take care of them? Or not or in what way? Can they founder?

I am on the weak peoples' side...

Addition April 25:
People lining up in South Africa to vote. All haven't been allowed, haven't had the right to vote and some had more votes than other people during history, and it looks as there exist compulsory voting too (you are not free to vote or NOT vote if you don't want to!! You HAVE to vote! Is that freedom or democracy?). How is it in the world today in those respects? My maternal grandmother was 27 when she got the right to vote on the same premises as men. My paternal grandmother was 35 then.

About religious beliefs, fundamentalism - and collective passivity…

Barbara Ehrenreich.

Ehrenreich said at the Meltdown Forum that “we” have believed that the market will take care of everything FOR us and all poor will eventually become wealthy, that everything eventually will become okay. Like a religious belief.

A belief on a higher power that will take care of everything, a power that’s fair, just and caring about us all. We shall just trust and rely on this invisible power.

She also spoke about a collective passivity in the footsteps of these beliefs (in the market and capitalism). A belief and "reliance" that we don’t have to concern ourselves with all injustices and human poverty we see around us, and following this the invisible hand will eventually come there and smooth everything out (after some of us have suffered a little bit, maybe not really died on the cross, but maybe not so far from, sacrificed for "the sin of man", again an invisible power?). Trusting that everything will eventually become fixed.

We can just lean back and trust that invisible power (and leave the responsibilities to this invisible power). Just like believing in a god (another invisible power) or a father, as small kids?

And see what Owe Wikström has written about the back-leaning indifference and indifference as hidden violence (an indifference that can result in cruelty).

Market and capitalist fundamentalists believe that the market will eventually fix everything for us.

Has this been the way of truly solving problems? Waiting for a higher power (a nature law, the nature in man?) or a (deputy) father to fix everything for us? And why hasn't this model worked so far? Because the imperfectness in man? Not because any imperfectness in this idea?

And this reliance, on a fair power (not God in this case, but capitalism and the market) excludes all true, real, flesh and blood actors? Nobody are sacrificed in the name of the market or capitalism? Or maybe who? The ones causing crisis's? Or the ones with less power and sometimes totally innocent to the crisis's? Who have done nothing but been working hard? Who are punished? And who are not punished? Is this a fair model?

Maybe there are no perfect models, but are there models that are a little more fair, to most people in the population.

How are those religious beliefs handled and by whom? In nobody’s interest? By nobody?

And they, the actors on the market, not least those with most power and money, what are they doing? Working for all our bests?

Are they almost like deputy priests for many of us? However, they aren’t named priests. And they aren’t standing in any pulpits in any churches preaching to people. Meaning that they don’t try to preach and influence us, the not questioning “congregation”? They are not making us join in the choir? And if we sing falsely, then what?

Their (our) “trust” in the market and capitalism as a power that will eventually fix everything, is that a back leaning indifference (even resulting in cruelty sometimes)? And are those relying on this power not active, but how?

Are they maybe saying that they are leaving everything to “the nature”?

And what is this “nature” actually? How is the “nature” of man? A genetic thing? A question of character?

No, I don’t think we are born evil. But there are certainly evil people in this world. And I don’t think we are born with drives for destruction, but destruction and self-destruction definitely exists…

Addition just before lunch: see the blogpostings "The Psychopath Machine" and "Crisis potential"... (both in Swedish).

The indifference as hidden violence - on social dilution…

the beauty of the nature (photo: S. Thomas).

One of the chapters in Wikström’s book has the title “The indifference as hidden violence – on social dilution.”

There he writes that many seem to have a proper job finding themselves. They are working hard on finding themselves.

Too many reference points are in constant movement. New ideals come and pass in a few weeks. The compass needle isn’t even spinning. It has disappeared.

The share of time people see real persons seem to be shorter and shorter compared to the time occupied with ‘social’ relations with people one don’t know except via media.

And this is tragic, and all too common? But why is it like this?

Since the human being is playing together with more and more people (all TV-series’ different gestalts not to forget) at the same time as she meets them during more fleeting spaces of time a social dilution occurs. When the human being – as a pure survival instinct – is thinning her relations to other people out, it becomes the more important to cultivate her own inner being. My addition: maybe needed too?

He writes further about something I think is interesting: passivity constitutes hidden violence. Many people distance themselves from physical violence in words. In the next moment they show that they assuredly want but cannot manage to get into other peoples’ sufferings. Maybe the present time’s wealthy north-European is witnessing the sort of cruelties that in the future will be seen as as barbaric as the abuse of women seem for us today: the leaning back indifference.

But is it the people in power, with most resources, who do something, are taking responsibility? Or who are they working or even fighting for? Who are trying to take the burden on their shoulders instead? Even though they have just a fraction of the money and power other people have. Who take the guilt on them? Who are accusing themselves for being indifferent, selfish, thinking only on themselves, and who are not?

It’s not a social construction; women and children in Africa are starving to death by actual undernourishment, while people in the rich world are buying bigger and bigger and more gasoline consuming SUVs. This is called omission sin. Embarrassed he writes this to himself too (though I am not sure he owns a SUV!).

Maybe it’s so that those same persons whom once upon the time were eating lentil soup, stood on the barricades and accused the big companies for arrogance now are members of the cigar smokers club or the fountain pen’s association. Large-eyed kids are seeing their parents betraying their old youth ideals:

“Not even they are caring, why should we then?”

They (those parents) are showing the arrogance and cynicism they reacted at once?

Showing moral pathos is seen with suspiciousness:

“Wasn’t the 68-generation a little overstrung? Look at the big golf bags they are conveying to Arlanda now [airport outside Stockholm] and what sort of wines they are tasting in Toscana!”

Consumism, entrepreneurship, profit maximizing, Neoliberalism and market powers, buy and sell are code words. They are seldom called in question.

So the questions return – who sees the weak and try to do something – commonly and long-term. Where are the models whose pathos apply to other people, to the ones that cannot manage, cannot afford or aren’t strong?

Who are showing placards where it is written that how positively a person even thinks about himself there is fragility in the existence/life nobody can turn away from? The tragedy comes sooner or less.

Then “if you want a thing done well, do it yourself” isn’t true or the solution, but the human being is entirely in the hands of other people. So who liberates and canalizes the engagement potential (many people are only interested in their own personal projects entirely, are only seeing themselves?? And why?)?

See Arthur Silber in his essay "The Indifference and Denial that Kills" . I also searched on the obedience culture on Silber's blogg and got this hit.